You ask whether certain information is subject to required public disclosure under chapter
552 of the Government Code. Your request was assigned ID# 128891.

The Department of Health (the "department ") received a request for complaints against the
requestor and related information. You claim that the requested information is excepted from
disclosure under section 552.101 of the Government Code.

Section 552.101 protects information made confidential by statutory or constitutional law or
by judicial decision. Section 552.101 incorporates the "informer's privilege," which has been
recognized by Texas courts. See Aguilar v. State, 444 S.W.2d 935, 937 (Tex. Crim. App.
1969). In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 59 (1957), the United States Supreme
Court explained the rationale that underlies the informer's privilege:

What is usually referred to as the informer's privilege is in reality the
Government's privilege to withhold from disclosure the identity of
persons who furnish information of violations of law to officers
charged with enforcement of that law. [Citations omitted.] The
purpose of the privilege is the furtherance and protection of the public
interest in effective law enforcement. The privilege recognizes the
obligation of citizens to communicate their knowledge of the
commission of crimes to law-enforcement officials and, by preserving
their anonymity, encourages them to perform that obligation.
[Emphasis added.]

The "informer's privilege" aspect of section 552.101 protects the identity of persons who
report violations of the law. When information does not describe conduct that violates the
law, the informer's privilege does not apply. Open Records Decision Nos. 515 (1988), 191
(1978). Although the privilege ordinarily applies to the efforts of law enforcement agencies,
it can apply to administrative officials with a duty of enforcing particular laws. Attorney
General Opinion MW-575 (1982); Open Records Decision Nos. 285 (1981), 279 (1981); see
also Open Records Decision No. 208 (1978). This may include enforcement of quasi-criminal
civil laws. Open Records Decision Nos. 515 (1988), 391 (1983). The privilege does not
apply ordinarily to employees "reporting" to their employers about the job performance of
other employees. See Open Records Decision No. 515. The privilege does not, however,
protect the contents of communications if they do not reveal the identity of the informant.
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. at 60. Because part of the purpose of the privilege is to
prevent retaliation against informants, the privilege does not apply when the informant's
identity is known to the individual who is the subject of the complaint. See Open Records
Decision No. 208 (1978).

It appears that the requestor, who is the subject of the complaint which you submitted as
responsive to the request, has already been apprized of the nature of the complaint and the
complainant's identity. He names the complainant in his request. You contend that the
individual requestor, nevertheless, cannot necessarily assume that the complaint responsive
to his request was made by the same complainant. We believe, however, that as a practical
matter, we must assume the requestor knows the complainants identity. Thus, the
information at issue may not be withheld under the informer's privilege.

Section 552.101 also protects information coming within the common-law right to privacy.
Industrial Found. of the South v. Texas Indus. Accident Bd., 540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976),
cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). Common-law privacy protects information if it is highly
intimate or embarrassing, such that its release would be highly objectionable to a reasonable
person, and it is of no legitimate concern to the public. Id. at 683-85. We have marked the
portions of the submitted information which must be withheld under common-law privacy.
The remainder of the requested information must be released.

We are resolving this matter with an informal letter ruling rather than with a published open
records decision. This ruling is limited to the particular records at issue under the facts
presented to us in this request and should not be relied upon as a previous determination
regarding any other records. If you have questions about this ruling, please contact our
office.